286 Late antiquity
‘powers’ (
) is likely to bring many errors with it.^20 For a gener-
alising statement about the supposed dietetic or pharmacological power
of a substance may in many particular cases turn out to be completely
false when it lacks important qualifications (
) concerning the
particular bodily constitution of the patient and the circumstances under
which it is to be administered.^21 This error may be due to the fact that
the empirical evidence adduced in favour of the statement has not been
properly interpreted, for instance because it has been torn out of context or
incorrectly extrapolated or generalised.^22 Galen illustrates this by means of
examples concerning the digestibility or laxativeness of certain foodstuffs
such as honey-drink ( ) and ‘rock fish’ (
- ).^23 Thus
a foodstuff which is said to be easily digestible may in certain cases be quite
difficult to digest because of an incidental or structural predominance of
yellow bile in the intestines due to a bad temperament ()ora
peculiarity of the bodily condition of the patient (
!#).^24
A general statement about the power of this particular foodstuff should
take this kind of complicating, variable factors into account.
(^201). 1. 7 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 204. 6 – 7 Helmreich, 6. 457 K.). On the connection between error and lack
of qualification see n. 7 above and von Staden ( 1997 ). As becomes clear from the sequel of Galen’s
argument, his criticism is especially directed towards too rash generalisations and overconfident causal
explanations; cf.De simpl. med. fac. 1. 34 ( 11. 441 K.): ‘Neither of the two statements is true when
put simply and without qualification, neither when people say that all astringent substances cause a
wound to close, nor when they say that all [wounds] that are closed are closed because of astringent
substances’ (( G " # % ! M "
) 0 & 5 0
)
1 - +n 4 0 & 5 ,
1
1 !)
+
), and 2. 3 ( 11. 466 f. K.). This Galenic criticism stands in a long tradition already attested
in the Hippocratic Corpus and in Diocles: see ch. 2 in this volume.
(^21) The term
!occurs a number of times in this chapter: see p. 210. 14 – 16 ( 6. 469 K., a criticism
of Diocles’ failure to distinguish between the notions of ‘foodstuff ’ and ‘drug’), p. 212. 3 and 7 ( 6. 472
K.), p. 215. 19 ( 6. 478 K.), p. 216. 5 and 14 Helmreich ( 6. 479 K.).
(^22) On undue generalisations see alsoDe alim. facult. 1. 1. 43 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 215. 18 – 20 Helmreich, 6. 478
K.): ‘I said “not few”, being very careful not to say “all”, for here, too, qualifications are needed
according to which the conditions of people with chronic diarrhoea will be discovered’ ( =
5 ,,0 ' D
0
"$
'
0 5 i /
H
d= ) )).
(^23) Thus at 1. 1. 8 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 204. 17 Helmreich, 6. 458 K.) he refers to Erasistratus (fr. 117 Garofalo)
for having pointed out that ‘neither does honey-wine cause the stomach to flow in all cases, nor do
lentils check it in all cases; rather is it the case that some people, in addition to experiencing neither
of these, are affected by the opposite, to the effect that their stomachs are checked by honey-wine,
but are caused to flow by lentils; and some people have been found to digest beef more easily than
rock fish’ ( 3 H
% ,
%
0 " 5
,
0 s 3 n #
0 P E
. *n
)n % 0
5 n n0
H
1
<!
O+n B R
-).
(^241). 1. 9 – 10 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 205. 5 ff. Helmreich, 6. 459 K.).